Charlot123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,869
- Reaction score
- 59,484
I just watched the Chris Albert testimony. The difference in his body language and demeanor when is son is introduced into the questioning is palpable and telling. In my opinion he's clearly protecting his son (as any parent might do) for SOMETHING. Not necessarily anything nefarious...it might be something completely innocent and innocuous. But his body language absolutely changes.
Respectfully shortened for brevity. You may be right, but the opposite scenario can be true as well. Imagine that CA spent the evening in a bar, went home, not totally sober, fell asleep and in the morning, heard that KR hit JO with her car. Then KR is arrested, and her defense pulls the usual SODDI trick, only SODDI is CA’s own son. Of whose moral character I know little, but if CA didn’t hear much about JO from his son, and now the situation is inflated for defense purposes, I can imagine him feeling angry. We really don’t know what happened there: it is possible that there was bad blood between CA and JO; likewise, it is not implausible that CA, being young, didn’t think twice of the older dude. If the latter is true, CA as the father has the right to feel angry.